Os Vampiros de Salem, o Retorno

If you are a fan of the horror and cult genre, especially of original screenplays and imaginative plots, you can't but have tremendous respect for Larry Cohen. The creative mastermind had an extremely busy career, during which he wrote more than eighty scenarios and also directed a good twenty films between the early 70s and the late 80s. Moreover, and what I personally appreciate most about Cohen, there is a huge diversity in his films. From pioneer blaxploitation cult like "Black Caesar", over micro-budgeted horror classic "It's Alive", towards the absurdly playful "Q - Winged Serpent" or "The Stuff"; - each of these is unique and 100% original. As a matter of course, not all of Cohen's scripts and/or films can be equally flawless. Notably the ones where he experimented with comedy and homage, like "Full Moon High" and this "A Return to Salem's Lot", are rather large disappointments.

In fact, "A Return to Salem's Lot" is more than a disappointment. It's a huge misfire. I honestly can't fathom what Cohen tried to accomplish with this redundant, in-name-only sequel to Tobe Hooper's successful TV mini-series based on the Stephen King novel. Here, an estranged father and son land in the little Maine town of Jerusalem's Lot and it's apparently already inhabited by vampires since the time of the Pilgrims. This wouldn't be a Larry Cohen flick if it didn't contain at least a handful of worthwhile elements. There are some nifty plot elements (for instance, the vampires use humanoid "slaves" to run the town during daylight), the gore is fairly outrageous and it's great fun to see the controversial director Samuel Fuller ("White Dog") as a bonkers vampire hunter. Still, throughout most of the running time, "A Return to Salem's Lot" is dull and utterly pointless. Michael Moriarty is once more incredibly irritating. Sometimes I really dig him, sometimes I can't stand him. In this film, it's the latter.

PS: I also hate misleading film posters. The poster for this film leads you to believe that Reggie Nalder's notorious character from the original, Kurt Barlow, also still appears in the sequel, which obviously isn't true. And yet, in spite of all this, you are still a favorite of mine, Larry Cohen!

There's an interesting story buried under the awful execution. Many interesting ideas and threads that warrant further exploration. It's a true shame this is what the result was.

In Larry Cohen's A Return to Salem's Lot, star Michael Moriarty plays the same kind of insufferable wise-cracking jerk as he did in Cohen's Q: The Winged Serpent; not only is the film's 'hero' thoroughly unlikeable, but so is his foul-mouthed rebellious teenage son Jeremy, played by Ricky Addison Reed. With these two on screen for the majority of the film, I found this 'sequel in name only' extremely irritating; my annoyance was compounded by a terrible script and the general tone of the film, which does away with the spine-chilling terror of Tobe Hooper's excellent mini-series of '79, and replaces it with scare-free drama and misplaced humour.

Moriarty plays anthropologist Joe Weber, a man so devoid of morals that, in the film's opening scene, he is happy to film the ritualistic murder of a native without trying to intervene. Joe is called back to civilisation to help deal with his wayward son, as if he would be of any use to the boy. The pair travel to Salem's Lot, where Joe has inherited a ramshackle property, but discover that the town is inhabited by vampires, led by Judge Axel (Andrew Duggan). Unlike the creatures of pure evil in Hooper's original, these bloodsuckers try to keep a low profile by feeding on cows, only occasionally taking human victims, and are keen to strike a bargain with Joe: they will spare his son if he writes a 'vampire bible' chronicling their kind. However, when Jeremy tells his father that he wants to integrate into the vampire society, Joe teams up with elderly Nazi-hunter/vampire slayer Dr. Van Meer (Samuel Fuller) to try and destroy the undead.

Forget blood-curdling scares; forget atmosphere; forget the intense horror of Mr. Barlow or the nightmare-inducing sight of Danny Glick floating outside a bedroom window: Cohen's film has nothing of the sort, instead offering viewers such awful, fright-free scenes as a bunch of giggling children attacking a pair of drunken bums, Joe having sex with a vampire blonde (he knows she's dead, but she's hot, so what the heck!), Jeremy having his first kiss with a vampire schoolgirl (the debut of Tara Reid), and Joe painting his porch (amongst other D. I. Y. Jobs). Thankfully, once Joe teams up with Van Meer, the film becomes a bit more lively and entertaining, as the pair go from house to house armed with stakes to pierce the hearts of the vampires. It's cheesy, trashy, and an insult to Hooper's classic, but at least it's more fun than watching kids in a schoolhouse learning about their vampire history.

For the cheap and cheerful special make-up effects and gore, and not one but two opportunities to see Katja Crosby topless, I rate A Return to Salem's Lot 3/10.

I sat down to watch the 1987 "A Return to Salem's Lot" after having just revisited the 1979 "Salem's Lot". And with the movie sporting a cover similar to the original 1979 movie, I assumed that there was a chance that this sequel might actually be an okay movie.

Truth be told, 2021 was actually the first time for me to sit down and watch "A Return to Salem's Lot". And it will also be my last time. Wow. Just wow. "A Return to Salem's Lot" was bad, really, really bad. I mean it wasn't even on the same page as the 1979 predecessor. Nay, "A Return to Salem's Lot" was just something that felt like a spoof.

It was painful and gut wrenching to sit through "A Return to Salem's Lot" and watch the ridiculous storyline unfold on the screen. God only knows what went through the minds of Larry Cohen and James Dixon when they were writing the script for this atrocity of a movie.

The special effects in the movie were poor, and actually even worse off than the special effects in the predecessor that was made 8 years before. So that is a bad testiment to how bad "A Return to Salem's Lot" really is.

Then there was the acting, or what was supposed to resemble acting. There was a shared concensus of putting on poor acting performances among the actors and actresses, or so one would think by looking at the performances put on throughout the course of the movie.

I found "A Return to Salem's Lot" to so bad that it felt like a slap to the face with a cold, dead fish. Don't waste your time on this 1987 sequel, because it is horrible.

My rating of director Larry Cohen's "A Return to Salem's Lot" lands on a mere three out of ten stars.

This movie had a good idea, that is, how a colony of vampires might live, what they do to survive, etc. However, it just didn't work out right. The pacing and performances were not up to snuff, and any movie in which you have characters standing in a barn full of Holstein cattle, and explaining that "Jersey cows make richer milk", obviously had problems in the design phase.

Just a bad film...